Ultra realism for new Mission Arena?

[Shiva]

This next bit will sound silly but I'm serious. What I think would be neat if this were added would be to also add a bulldozer to the vehicle selection. Then, so long as a dozer is in contact with a crater, the craters repair time is sped up. Award a vehicle perk per crater repaired and a whole new way to earn perkies for that Tiger opens up.

Make it simpler. A bulldozer is a functionally unarmored tracked vehicle (you could count the dozer blade as armor; it was used that way during the war) with a really poor high-end speed (i.e., like being stuck in 1st in a Panzer), but it erases the graphic for a crater in a swath equal to the width of the vehicle as it drives over it. So rather than just driving up and parking on a crater, you'd have to do some back and fill work to drive over all the crater and plane it back smooth.

The damage that gets done to a plane's undercarriage should also depend on what part of the crater it rolls across. Just rolling along the outer edge won't be much of a risk, but rolling into the center would be.

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by ccvi
Most of all, disable AWACS/GPS (map) and the HUD (icons).

Add a G-forces HUD though (we're not able to feel them, so we should be able to see them without looking at a gauge somewhere down in the cockpit).

The Awacs radar in plane simulates aircraft being vectored to target my ground controllers. It really should only cover the general area you are flying.

When your on the ground, you should have access to the entire war picture as we do now. I would not eliminate the radar in flight, but I would temper it a little.

As for the icons, we simply need them for aicraft identification. Ask WWII historians at what range a pilot can ID an Aircrafts origin, and use that. The ask him at what range a pilot could generaly tell the A/C type.

So lets use 4000 yards and 2000 yards respectively for this example.

Beyond 6K you see nothing. At 6K you see a dot at your 12, level. As you approach, at 4K, you get an icon telling you country of origin (Bish, Rook, knight). At 2K you get the rest of the icon telling you the plane type.  

There's just no way a 2D flat monitor with a limited number of pixels can replace what real pilot could actually see, so I do agree we can limit the icons, but absolutley not eliminate them all together.

[J_A_B]

"Just add 1:1 fuel consumtion and 1:1 mapscale, and it would be perfect."

That is a very bad idea.  Remember that the upcomming Mission arena is going to be 8th airforce/ETO.....then remember that these guys were flying multi-hour flights.   The poor B-17 drivers would have to stay at AH for 8-10 hours straight or so!   Even the P-47 guys would be flying around for 3-4 hours at a time--NOT a good situation if the mission arena is expected to survive (especially how considering that of those 4 hours, 3 would be spent flying through empty air with nothing to do).


As for things like engine overheat...I wonder how many people clamoring for overheating actually realize how long it would take for these planes to overheat, especially at combat altitude.  If modeled realistically, this would have little effect except to give players more or less unlimited WEP time.

WEP use and combat restrictions were based more upon engine manintence intervals and range/fuel use considerations.  While maintenence is not a concern in AH, fuel use definately is and my guess is the Allied pilots especially will have to limit their combat time or run out of gas on the way home.

Of course, it could be modeled UNrealistically where engines would heat up and stop working in a stupidly short amount of time, but what would be the point of adding something like THAT?  Yep, for the sole purpose of making the game more difficult (often confused with realism)....which is silly.


J_A_B

[J_A_B]

"Ask WWII historians at what range a pilot can ID an Aircrafts origin, and use that."

Why just not read their autobiographies?


Yeager tells about being able to spot enemy formations on a clear day at a distance of around 50 MILES.  He is not the only one who reports having been able to make out formations of planes at distances at well over 20 miles.  6000 yards?   My god man, you have a blind guy in the cockpit!  With vision that bad you couldn't even get a DRIVER's license, much less get to fly a fighter plane!


Individual types could be made out at distances that would surprise you.  Remember that in any particular theater, pilots generally only had relatively small number of fighters to have to tell apart, unlike in the MA where we have dozens of models.  Being able to tell apart different models of planes at most angles at 5000-6000 yards is easily within a trained person's capabilities (head and tail-on identification is tougher).  An untrained observer on the ground can tell apart B-17's from B-24's when they're flying at 25000+ feet, which is about 5 miles (8000+ yards)!

A lot of people, who have never done this sort of thing, badly under-estimate what the human eye is capable of.  


J_A_B

[slimm50]

"And with the large influx from AW I don't expect HiTech or Pyro will introduce anything that would upset those subscribers. "

I resent that remark. Being an AW vet myself, I'd welcome some more realism in the MA. I was one of the many in AW who was salivating at the prospects of  more realistic modeling when the plug got pulled.

[Turbot]

Originally posted by slimm50
I resent that remark. Being an AW vet myself, I'd welcome some more realism in the MA. I was one of the many in AW who was salivating at the prospects of  more realistic modeling when the plug got pulled.

I remeber when Over-Rev would turn on.  God you never heard such cries of pain

[phaetn]

I don't seem much point in wagging fingers at former AW players and laying blame for current MA settings on their presence.  They're not AW players now, they're AH players, and as such are vital members of this community.  I know lots of flight sim developers who would love to have their company, and HTC was lucky to get them.  

Remember, no matter what flight sim one plays, we're all much more alike than different, and quibble over distinctions that no outsider could even begin to appreciate.

I'm all for a more realistic arena, too, of course.  It needs to be demonstrated to HTC, however, that it would be sustainable and worthwhile their effort.  Looking at the numbers at this moment (246 MA; 5 CT) it would hardly seem like we have the courage of our convictions, no?  That said, there is a market for more realistic gameplay, it's just a question of tapping it.

What I'd really like to see is readily adjustable server settings that could be player controlled (not individually, but by an appointed player/community member) and really experimented with to see what draws a crowd.  Basically able to toggle next to everything, including trying things like friendly collisions, just to see how players manage it.

Cheers,
phaetn

[AKDejaVu]

Swoop....

I like all of the ideas if the arena were to be campaign based.

If it stays individual mission based, random items that prevent you from even attempting to complete the mission should be minimized.  Nothing worse than gearing up on a Friday to fly that one mission before spending quality time with the family, only to have that time arrive way too early due to a failure.

AKDejaVu

[phaetn]

Agree with you on all counts, Oedipus!  Careful with Jocasta's pins or you'll put your eye out.

Cheers,
phaethon

[phaetn]

ROFL!  Holy crap I nearly pissed myself!  I especially like:

Antigone, we're both doomed.
I left a lonely old man out of luck,
With no eyes to see cause I poked em out,
But I knew there was more to come.

Catchy tune, that one!

I poked 'em out, I poked 'em out.  he he he

Cheers,
phaetn

[FDBFatboy]

I don't know, I happen to think the AW'ers have much better ideas than most of the not quite so new people that came along not very long before them.

[Dowding]

Engine overheat? Well, I was reading a report about a test-bed endurance run on an aero-engine (think it may have been a P-47). It ran for DAYS at 100% throttle with no damage. I really think engine overheat is over-played - if it was a huge factor, the question is how much should it be factored in. I think they avoided 100% throttle for long-term engine life issues - it had nothing to do with reliability in-sortie.

Weapon jams? Hmm... that could really drive people away.

Fog? I'm all for more weather effects.

Removal of combat-trim etc? Absolutely not - maybe it's just me, but I don't have access to analogue rotary dials of any kind. Trimming the plane using keys would be a complete pain in the arse.

The thing I most want is a graduated damage model - i.e. there are degrees of say, aileron damage - not all or nothing.

I'd also like the windscreen to get covered in oil or dirt when you fly too close to burning aicraft. Now that would be cool.

[Swoop]

Dowd, I read an AAR from a US pilot in a P47 who got chased outta France by a 190 pilot who couldnt shoot for toejam.  Chase went on for 20 minutes and when the 190 finally ran outta ammo and peeled off the P47 pilot "eased his engine down and back out of the red".

[phaetn]

Indeed.

And if you don't think heat was an issue, why do you think there were adjustable cowl flaps, etc. and ram air was so important?  Planes would overheat in a manner of minutes sitting on the runway if they didn't get decent airflow.

Considerations for cooling air and locations of rads to manage engine temp very much affected the development of planes. Consider the cool air intakes of the P-51 versus the Spitfire and how the two approaches had such a vast impact on performace even with versions that had the same powerplant.  The Spit took a huge hit on drag with its mammoth box under the wing, affecting both airspeed and fuel consumption, while the P-51 had an exceptionally clean system created after much experimentation as to its position (and cooled better, to boot).

As it is, I'm not sure how much of a place engine overheat has in AH.  There is an engine temp system now, and it affects how much WEP you can use (effectively an overheating issue).  What we don't get are premature detonation, misfires, and engines siezing for being pushed too hard (and a crew chief to bark at us when we get home).    

I think engine damage from overheating (not combat damage induced) is too over the top for the MA.  It might have a place in long scenarios, though, where a single sortie can last the whole event.

Cheers,
phaetn

[Creamo]

Engine overheat? Well, I was reading a report about a test-bed endurance run on an aero-engine (think it may have been a P-47). It ran for DAYS at 100% throttle with no damage.

It's another blind attempt to make a case for a feature excluded from AH. Please.